If you publish fake video, or you see other fake videos, you may initially think it's a success because of the view counts. This is more like a blackhat hack with a bait and switch. This is not an effective technique for sharing content appropriate to the platform. If someone releases a series of silent podcast episodes only so they can put out the titles in podcast apps, we would consider that abusing the platform.Īnd if someone publishes only audio, but no video, on a video-based platform, we should also consider that abusing the platform. If someone makes a blank image and uploads to Instagram only so they can write a long blog post, we would consider that abusing the platform. If someone writes a long blog post, takes a screenshot, and shares that image on Instagram, we would consider that abusing the platform. Posting fake video goes against the simple premise of video. When people search or browse YouTube, they expect to watch videos. “It can't hurt”-Actually, it can hurt, as you'll understand from the following points.It reaches a non-podcast audience-True, but it's reaching them so ineffectively, you might not see any positive results.It's easy and maybe even automated with publishing tools-Simply because something is easy doesn't mean it's good.To make your content discoverable on Google and YouTube-Maybe true, at first, but it will soon be demoted.I usually hear four reasons to publish fake video on YouTube:

The supporting reasons are mostly misunderstood and short-term My following thoughts address the “fake video” approach. I think the short, animated videos commonly called “audiograms” are entirely separate and beneficial. It's essentially audio with pixel dimensions. It's when they take the whole audio of their episode, put it into a video file, and display a simple image (static or sometimes moving).

I often use the term “fake video” to describe what some podcasters make.

Youtube to rss podcast